Why NASA's First Landing On The Moon in 50 Years Matters - It's Commercial, Cryogenic & Confused
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 02. 2024
- Intuitive Machines have successfully soft landed on the Moon, carrying a number of payloads for NASA, this represents a return to the moon for the USA. However far more significantly, it's the first purely commercial lander to land on the surface of the moon, and the first lunar lander to use purely cryogenic propellents for all its deep space maneuvering.
Both of these factors are core to NASA's Artemis program, and so seeing success here is important to NASA's plans.
However.
It's far from a perfect success, because it appears to have fallen over during the landing, and this is limiting the communications with the Earth, it's not clear how much science will be possible with the lunar surface payloads, but at least 3 of the payloads already contributed directly to the success of the landing.
The model I used in animations is by IronManElonMusk for Juno New Origins
www.simplerockets.com/c/y29Fg...
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley - Věda a technologie
2024 is the Year of Sideways Moon Landers! 😂
Maybe its the moon thats gone sideways.
I'm thinking about all those Robot Wars robots with self-righting mechanisms and wondering if maybe something like that is actually worth the payload loss.
@@JimmyRussleNot again!!!
@@MrHws5mpImplement it into the landing legs like in KSP? And with the right kind of synchronized articulation and weight offset maybe a landed vehicle can drag itself across the surface?
Never kick sideways. You can throw your your hip out of whack and that really hurts.
I basically waited for your analysis rather than bother to get anyone else's. As usual it was worth the wait.
HE still didn't get half the story. There is whole crapload of stories coming out about how the controllers were hiding the data from the public until 24 hours later for the stock holders. If this is how private space is going to be, they shouldn't even bother.
The mass media generally botches this type of coverage bad that it isn't worth watching. I hope everyone takes note and stops watching so the mass media gives up soon.
Same here!
All they had to do was call Goodyear. Back about 20yrs ago Goodyear tried using a LIDAR system during one of our holiday shut-downs, since we were already X-raying 100% of our big truck tires. Testing the LIDAR proved that it worked great on 100% all of the 100's of finished tires scanned, that passed through it on the conveyor. When production returned it worked great for a couple of hours then started malfunctioning.
To make a long story short, the LIDAR worked great on the cold tires that had been left on the conveyors for 2 weeks for testing, but once the freshly cooked hot tires made it to the LIDAR booth, even after an hour making the trip the radiant heat absolutely destroyed the image. 😎👍
I second that...
Homer’s Odysseus wasn’t exactly known for an uneventful journey either.
Land in Anatolia, get out of the boat, faceplant.
Homer’s Odysseus , wasn't that a Greek myth with giant cyclops and amazon women? That was a really historically and scientifically reliable document. Good analogy.
@@jimfoard5671 bruh
@@jimfoard5671 Yes, it's a great analogy, seeing as the lander is called Odysseus.
They need to put wax in the sensors!
Glad the side with the artwork related to nfts was covered
That one engineer: You never specified orientation after touchdown.
I know a guy who would say that... 😮💨
As an (sw) engineer who sometimes does stuff to big specs that goes into unneeded detail in some areas and has none in others, I can sadly say that this could be me. After a while you just grow tired of it all and start practicing a little malicious compliance just to stick it to the rigid spec/org structure.
I usually do it in small irrelevant corners, not like this though.
Battlebots - Self righting mechanisms anyone ???
@@eriknystrom9293 Modern Western corporate organization and culture seems to be anti-innovation/success.
I can't help but suspect that probably the orientation was, in fact, specified.
The name Odysseus is kind of ironic considering how IM-1 took the shortest possible route
and yet traveled so much farther than the original character.
Yep...! 🙂👍 -70SomethingGuy
The return will be longer
@@ThatOpalGuy well ya know the real Odysseus had to hook up with Circe and that took a min.
They should have reserved the name for a twenty year mission to retrieve a sample of one of Jupiter's trojans.
Great Explanation Scott. I found the lack of detail in the news hard to work with. You have presented the details awesome as usual :)
NPR did pretty good coverage on everything that went wrong
When you have nothing, where do you find details for it?
Your first mistake is relying on "news" for anything factual.
Thank you Scott for pointing out what we all missed, that LIVE feed from a side body cam looking down towards the landing legs. It would have been great PR for them to stream that the way SpaceX now streams their landings.
We all know a space mission can "go squirrelly" on you at anytime, but as we know this, we expect to see the odd "ooops" happening.
Congrats to the IM team on getting there and down without resorting to Litho-Braking.
Litho-breaking... 😅😅😅
Streaming video requires a constant high data-rate connection, which is logistically very difficult when your spacecraft is actively maneuvering in terminal descent. It is more important to use your data stream for important telemetry than attempting to livestream video. But it sounds like they may try that for round 2... people need to cut them slack, this was their first time ever operating this vehicle.
"Houston, I've fallen! And I can't get up!!"
copy that…
best comment!
SpaceAlert: "Saving lunar landers from a potential catastrophe EVERY 11 MINUTES*."
* "Unless you're in space. We can't help you."
Bro. Hahhahahahahahhaha this got me good
A self-righting mechanism seems inexpensive compared to mission failure.
I helped design those full tanks on the Armadillo lander and did all the welding and joint design on them also, using a custom made welding positioner that I designed and built, and welded the tanks together using an old Hobart tig welding machine, all by hand. They pressure tested the tanks about a thousand times, I think, and then flew the test tanks. I work in aerospace and defense, on rockets, landers, and weaponry.
We also built a lander for the NASA sponsored contest. We had freat success building our own spherical tanks, then contracted with the Armadillo tean to build their tanks. Again, we used our design to meet they're mounting and ports needs. They flew before we could, so it knid of backfired.
We didnt know that the tanks were the last thing holding them up, other than a few tests.
We exceeded Lockheed's and ULA's testing cycles with the tanks keeping their structural integrity by hundreds of times. You dont need robotics to do this kind of quality. You need patience, an understanding of metallurgy, what heating and cooling does to a weld joint, more patience, and dedication to the Art. Never give up. I have 52 years, and even more if you count my childhood projects, of metal working experience.
These landers came about with Shear-Will, and alot of private funding and volunteers working on them. The creative talents were Outstanding! Kevin, Mike and Mike, and alittle help from myself, made these projects happen.
I have never worked with a brighter collection of creative people. It was an honor to be a part of it.
There are Gophers everywhere. Gotta watch out for Gopherholes.
Next time, bring gopher snakes with you.
👍🏴
You got a heart from Scott. High praise! Great to hear from someone actually involved.
this was very interesting thx 🎉
*_"Gophers, ya great git! Not golfers! The little brown furry rodents!"_*
*-- CADDYSHACK [1980]* 😊
Hobart lmao
I fallen and I can’t get up!
Did they put life alert on this? 😊
Showing your age lol
😂😂
Good report. When I saw how tall the lander is and how narrow the landing gear by comparison it seemed like it was designed to tip over.
How was this overlooked by so many scientists
@@save2rave61 Not enough collective KSP manhours on the design team, apparently.
by now all of you need to know you never landed on a moon nor any other place in "high orbit"
They didn't play KSP enough. Vertical soft landing is very hard, prone to tipping over, even on flat and smooth surface, let alone on uneven and rocky surface like moon.
Elon Musk made it look easy
No, they are hardcore ksp fans,They made the lander land just like the startscreen
SpaceX has done so with a severely top heavy booster at 1 G onto a pitching rolling deck, AUTONOMOUSLY. Mebbe Intuitive Miasma shoulda asked for help.
Maybe they need to make it a sled design with skis and a low center of gravity instead of these tall, high center of gravity chassis. One that would remain stable with a little Delta X…
@@jmcenanly1 Space X does not advertise the failed landings as much.
Rookie mistake
They didn’t quick save before the final decent
They didn't have sufficient reaction wheel
thankfully, the company was able to develop a day 1 patch to fix the gamebreaking bug.
Not to sound too much like a fanboy, but frankly, without your breakdowns and insight, I don't think most of us would truly know what was going on with space exploration at the moment. Me and my kids watch every video and talk about it for an hour or two, draw pictures and play Kerbal to see things for ourselves. Know that you are a hero to so many more people than you may think. Thank you.
🤡 This dude is not a certified person to speak on this subject yet you say he is a hero OK
@@holidayturnpike Sorry you are clearly a bitter and unpleasant individual. Not even sure why you'd come to this video if you don't consider it a valid source of information. Finally, if we relied on "certified" people (whatever the f**k that means, who hands out "certificates" to talk about space technology?), we'd literally know nothing or it would all be misinformation. I'll take a Scott Manley any day vs. whatever you think is a "certified person". Thanks for the opinion, I hope you get the help you need.
there is nothing going on the way you think of space lol i tip my hat to the ds
@@michelleper5065 .... I've studied English as a language for a long time, and I still have no idea what on earth you are trying to say LOL
@@amberdamber7 try harder... the ones i want to understand do... i assure you the ds is reading every letter i put out....
Thanks for the Post, Master Manley! Somehow it seems A fair number of us didn't get the message, or maybe were too Drunk or lazy to pay attention to any aspect of this Lunar Mission. I hang my head in shame... But you managed to inject a good dose of drama and Excitement into just describing the darned thing. THANKS!!!
The landing was reminiscent of all our toils in Kerbal Space Program!
We all secretly know what we all try in KSP when a lander tips over... Left-shift
All they had to do was keep the navigation control set to retrograde. It's not like it's rocket science.
@canadiannomad2330 I don't play KSP But I assume that means you fire up the engines to see what happens just a guess here from a machine lover
Fighter jets and motorcycle mostly
unless your velocity is set to orbital and not surface..@@TheJimtanker
@@theunluckycharm9637 Tanks and motorcycles for me. I was a tanker for 25 years and the M1 has a jet engine. Does that count?
The NFTs landed face down... well, relatively speaking, it's nice to see nothing of value was lost there. 🤭
Right? The best side it could have landed on.
It fell face down by intention, can't see out of the cameras to show us the stars and milky way from the surface. Of course the Apollo astronauts told us the sky is a "deep black", as it is from cislunar space. With the downward and sideways motion and the shape of the foot pads, the thing would have buried those feet in the regolith while the top kept moving and it tipped. NASA was doing the landing at the time, and I'd say it new exactly what it was doing and pulled it off perfectly. Sabotage.
Rover is struck its a crash ego is playing here
If Kamala Harris (our new commander in chief) was describing it, she would also add "not top up, while not being bottom down, the upper part was not up but the really amazing thing is, the part that was normally down was it wasn't. Insert cackle at every comma for context.
@@ChatGPT1111
Now do Trump...
Phenomenal detail and context Scott
Wow 4.9k comments! Quite impressive… Thanks for always putting out quality content. So many channels are clickbait quality with some robotic voice reading misspelled words off a script! Keep up the great work.
lotta ai iphone zombies... never went to a moon and never will go to a moon you cant
how that moon landing going for you lol
I have passed on a few clickbait headlines earlier cause I knew 'Scott Manley' would have the facts, and he did. Thank you sir you do a fantastic job.
Respect to the guys that reconfigured the 'tag on' LIDAR system- to integrate it with the main landing software in UNDER ONE ORBIT!
Deep respect.
Working under that kind of pressure without making any mistakes...
Impressive is an understatement.
That ability to quickly switch to the other lidar's also says that the software being patched/tweaked was pretty well designed so as to allow such a functionality change to be done that quickly. I'm impressed as well.
No he didn't, it all happened inside a computer, and I mean the whole scam. Space is fake
Cope
I do think however they will find in the final analysis that the LIDAR system contributed to why the lander tipped over. Remember, they said the lander was traveling at 6fps down and 2fps horizontally. Had that horizontal velocity been null, one of the lander's legs wouldn't have dug into the surface and caused the tipover.
Patching the software was a smart move that saved them from what was likely a complete failure of mission. However, perhaps if they hadn't rushed the landing and used another orbit to fully test the patch they would have been more successful.
Great stuff helldiver
Great summary. Thank you.
Unbelievable that there wasn’t an electronic status or alarm indicating the LIDAR safety was not in the launch configuration
They're ex-Boeing employees...😂
...or that they didn't doublecheck, triplecheck etc
Well, they are taking pride in it being cheap. Failure due to cost cutting is just even more wasteful. It is still a whole of money down the drain without any returns.
@@Wann-zo7rn2qn4iFailure makes you make your next mission more sensitively. Otherwise everyone would have got success on their first try. In the recent years of rise in Lunar missions, only the Indians have managed to get success in their 3rd lunar mission. But even they had failure on their 2nd moon landing. They learned the mistakes and worked on it. US despite being leader in space organisation still haven't done a lunar landing mission since Apollo. So they will eventually become successful too.
There was. It obviously failed. :P
Hey Scott, back about 20yrs ago Goodyear tried using a LIDAR system during one of our holiday shut-downs, since we were already X-raying 100% of our big truck tires. Testing proved that it worked great on 100% all of the 100's of finished tires scanned that passed through it on the conveyor. When production returned it worked great for a couple of hours then started malfunctioning.
To make a long story short, the LIDAR worked great on the cold tires that had been left on the conveyers for 2 weeks for testing, but once the freshly cooked hot tires made it to the LIDAR booth, even after an hour making the trip the radiant heat absolutely destroyed the image. 😎👍
At Avon we used to cool our tyres through a fan tunnel to enable quicker inspection and thus less scrap, no lidar though.
Buffalo NY?
@@Liberateddock Melksham UK
@@RustyVanDoor Wouldn't make any difference on those big truck tires cause they're scanning for belt misalignment deep under the tread. They would have to be sitting/cooling for hours to not affect the LIDAR. We have 6 x-ray lines and x-ray techs running full speed just to handle the amount of tires coming through. Just being able to use the LIDAR would've been a severe choke point for production.
@@MAGGOT_VOMITnumber of tires. Why are ppl saying amount for countable things now? It’s widespread. I mean you did learn the correct way in school, right?
Thank you Scott ! That is the first constructive explanation of what happened.
you cant land on a moon or a mars... but you did signed off your freedom for a bag of ai iphones! lol
They should make the landing feet parabolic to avoid digging in at weird angles.
They should also have a backup plan in case it tips over. Why not have arms that extend to push it back up? I get that it is going to make it more complex and expensive, but look at what they have now.
@@sully9088Too heavy. Weight is at an extreme premium for payloads.
@@sully9088 instead of putting money and effort into a system like arms that fix a problem, put that money and effort into preventing the problem in the first place. The people who did this did put that effort into preventing this, but they had a much lower budget and tried there best.
@@sully9088Or just design a different shape. But your idea would have come in handy.
you will never land anywhere high orbit... you barely are in low orbit circling around in the holographic simulation ....
Help I've fallen and can't get up!
Build it like a Webles toy as they wobble and don't fall down. 😅
@@shauny2285 THAT'S ACTUALLY A GREAT IDEA!!!!! THINK ABOUT IT!!!!! "Weebles wobble but they don't fall down!!!!!"
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
The H3 / Space Venn diagram is small. But it exists.
@@shauny2285 - "any roly-poly toy is at stable equilibrium in the upright position." You may have something there:-)
I REALLY hope they manage to get the Eaglecam working. I would love for my universities contribution to this lander to be some of the best space meme material of all time.
From a space news article:
“One payload yet to operate is EagleCam, a student-built camera that was designed to eject from the lander about 30 meters from the surface and take images of the landing. However, the ejection did not take place after the software on the lander was revised to make use of the Navigation Doppler Lidar data. Altemus said EagleCam is mounted on a side panel and should be able to eject later in the mission, which may last 9 to 10 days on the surface, providing images of the lander.”
@@Vortex-gz8senice
Did you work on it? I’m technically an ERAU student atm, but I haven’t gone back since my first semester (fall 2022) because it was just a horrible time. Got horrible grades, had 6 people sharing 2 rooms and 1 bathroom. Only thing I liked was the actual campus and astronomy class
@@Vortex-gz8se was that before or after the tip?
Man the memes of erau owning the moon was great
Fantastic video!
Thank you for explaining this.
You spoke a little about price and the comparatively low cost of this mission which made me wonder; What do you think is the bare-bones cheapest someone could put 'something' (anything) on the moon? Like, not necessarily any 'precious cargo', just something. Anything. Maybe something as basic as a marker, a photograph, or a message on paper or someones name laser etched on an object or a simple camera that sends back a single image (that's probably already way too complex). Like, what is the smallest, simplest, cheapest rocket that could launch something to the moon?
2:45 pretty sweet terrain mapping radar! I wonder if nowadays they’d implement a phased array instead and use some SAR methods for mapping as they approached or traveled over the surface
lol
I imagine the next mission instructions will have "Remove the lidar protector" printed in large friendly letters.
Remove before flight ribbons
@@jamesocker5235that, and 2 QA engineers watching someone doing the work. Which costs💰
Presumably the numpty who forgot to enable the LiDAR will have to pick up the check for it. "Sorry Jimbo - $26 million less in your take-home pay this week."
don't panic
Someone will be struggling to sleep about leaving it on. Imagine knowing that was your job
It's 2024 and a first time in 50 years effort involving a first use ever system can't successfully follow a pre-flight checklist. That sounds about right. 🤦🏻♂
Dat privatization. 🙄
Where is your moon lander?
@@iamaduckquack oh don't be juvenile.
The reason the cost to almost fail was a lot less because the Mercury and Apollo programmes were such a leap- forward for us all techwise. This had not , to my knowledge anyway, spawned any major new research.
My Landers, the ones I help pay for are still on the moon, six of them .. and a couple of 'rovers'
Not an incorrect statement but worth nothing the fact they made it to the moon and landed is nothing short of astounding for a first mission! 😮
@@KindredAutomotive It's not astounding. They got a big pile of money from Nasa to deliver the instruments on the lunar surface. And at least partially failed. Full success should be the expectation, not praise for a partial failure as a supposedly great achievement.
We learnt from the Apollo moon missions that PR is incredibly important and not a trivial thing. This largely was a PR disaster - from the completely underwhelming and confusing countdown to the landing - to the silence and bad communications afterwards. All needs to get much slicker if they want to impress the American and world public- not an issue for science of course but issue for future missions.
I need more understanding why the EagleCam had to be disabled. I thought it was autonomous once it ejected. Would have been SUPER HELPFUL to see why this sucker is on its side. They need 1-2 EagleCams on all future lander missions.
Not to mention COG during landing and mass momentum (vert landing speed) of a landing craft,
maybe the eagle should have been deployed regardless.
I would show you my gold stash but sadly my camera stopped working. But I have a massive gold stash, you must believe me. Tommorow I will pay somobody to make a video about it and you will be able to see some computer generated animation of the thing. Do you believe me?
Concur, would love to see more EagleCam's on future missions! The people want EagleCam!
you will never land on a moon
At 13:20 we see an animation of how moon-sky should look like (a mistake from IntuitiveM). At 15:40 we see the familiar all-black sky. I won't believe that landing with lateral speed and no cam deployment was part of a deal. Let's wait and see what kind of sky next missions will depict.
Even though the cost of this mission is several orders of magnitude less than Surveyor, the technology on board Odysseus is several orders of magnitude more capable than that of Surveyor. That makes me appreciate all the more how daring snd successful Surveyors were for their time almost 60 years ago.
This is one of the amazing aspects of Apollo. So many of the key technologies and necessary infrastructure were developed and built from scratch. From the computing ring on Saturn 5 to new sections of intracoastal waterway. What the Apollo team would have given for a handful of ARM CPUs, a few gb of cheap memory, and wireless high-speed networking.
THIS is why I subscribe to this channel. Explanations and analysis that put the mainstream media (and many other CZcams channels) to shame. Thanks Scott for answering all the questions I had, and many more I hadn't even thought about.
Shows how successful Chandrayaan 3 Landing Mission from ISRO (India) was. It costed even less!
lol who? what moon? sold their freedom for a bag of potato chips and an ai iphone lol
Great vid
12:26 "A small lander the size of a big lander"
USA - “What’s a matter Japan, can’t land upright on the Moon? - Here, hold my beer…….”
Wasn't this a private spacecraft, launched by a private company?
Unsure what Japan versus USA has to do with anything...
Looking at the designs of these landers, I would say they were made too top-heavy. Rather than being tall, they should have been wide.
Well Now, WE did 90-Degrees BETTER THAN Japan...!!! They landed UPSIDE DOWN.. We IMPROVED on THAT by managing to Landing On Our SIDE... USA..! USA...!! USA...!!! : )
@@codymoe4986 What they both have in common is that Aliens are laughing at us! /sarcasm
Dead meme is dead.
I obviously can't go into details, but that rangefinder was made where I work. The interlock is a last resort safety switch connected to our lab doors in case someone opens one while the laser is firing.
IM did a simply incredible job working around this and coming up with a solution in an hour and a half. Absolutely stunning work from them.
I agree, I hope they get this worked out, and Congratulations to all of the teams involved. But it amazes me how many issues we can have with all the new technology we use today and how much more advanced we are since we landed on the moon so long ago, but we have so much trouble landing now even with fewer funds. The cost should be less. But over all Great Job!
Maybe the take-away learning here is that all the vehicle safeing mechanisms/interlocks should have some supervisory circuit also present to confirm what state they are in. Ideally, you'd confirm this as part of the payload close-out checklist after each of the "remove before flight" checklist items.
Im no rocket scientist..
but,
Isn't the power coupling the saftey lockout for a laser system?
For what they are saying to be true, the saftey lockout would have to be designed to work with the power to the laser "on" which would make it just a glorified switch .. Which wouldnt suffice for servicing only physical disconnection would. Or am i missing something?
The low-tech way of doing this (and you can see this method on military aircraft) is to have flags/ribbons on the items that need to be removed or set before launch/integration. Then count the number of flags/ribbons that are holding in your fist before mashing the big red launch button (or proceeding to the next step of integration).
Grow Up.
It's Fake FFS!
the take-away is they had poor proceedures
@@randymarshall7665I'm not a rocket scientist either but... Why don't they have at least 1 redundant system to back this up? You'd think that if you had something that couldn't be repaired easily or ever, you'd make a few redundant systems to cover yourself/mission.
Idea for a spacecraft: a ball shape with minimal mechanical systems. Just enough to roll and some retractable antennas
*sputnik-1 beeping intensifies*
Nice try, Palpatine.
I was thinking the same thing. So no matter how it landed it could still move about. Even if it landed upside down.
Fallen over, those winds in Nevada must be extremely strong
It's amazing how 54 years after landing 2 astronauts on the moon we struggle to send an unmanned lander there.
The only logical explanation for that is the moon landing was fake.
Got to wonder why they made it tall and narrow. Practically asking for it to tip over. Short and wide with a low centre of gravity would surely be more sensible? As for failing to remove the lockout on the Lidar... I mean we all make mistakes at work but I feel better about mine now...
Rocket guidance is like balancing a broomstick on your hand. It's easy with a long broom, but try the same thing with a pencil. It's not impossible, but almost. Look up phase margin. IIRC, on the LEM they were concerned because it was only 18 inches
Tall and narrow is actually more stable. Why do you think that almost all tanks are much taller than they are wide. Most large buildings are also much taller than they are wide. The center of mass is easier to manipulate on something tall than one something wide. Sure it didn't work out this time. That doesn't mean it wasn't the best option.
yup, pendulum rocket fallacy.
i just wish we could know why it had ANY horizontal velocity at touch down.
pencils naturally want to lay on their side. so build a lander made to lay on its side. @@sdrc92126
The shape of the craft is influenced by the shape required to be a payload on top of a rocket. Typically, a rocket payload, as it gets larger, gets taller not wider.
Goes to show how good the Apollo landings were. ❤
@@TheWizard-pk4nh If there is about 3 seconds of latency between sending the command and being able to correct for it, why don't we send a comm sat and lander at the same time and time the comm's orbit so that a crew on the ground can just pilot the lander manually? Sure, an autopilot can take over if something goes wrong (like fighter pilots that automatically pull up if you try to head straight for the ground), but give me a joystick and the telemetry and I'll give it a shot.
Which was hylighted in Apollo 13.
But also the pre Apollo unmanned probes landed properly , Apollo 12 landed next to one and the astonauts retrieved its camera.
That was Surveyor 3
@@arturoeugster7228Were they 100% successful, and were they digital?
@@Pickelhaube808 3 seconds is a huge latency, way too long to react in a dangerous situation - if your car was on a 3 second one way delay you'd travel more than 75 metres from a hazard appearing to you even seeing it, then the same again between you braking and the car slowing down. It's really difficult to drive in a streamed game with under a second of latency, you don't want people trying to manually pilot space craft with 9 figure costs like that
I expect this will lead to a serious rethink of lander design in future. A design which can self- right or extend a couple of arms or be capable of some kind of motion or something else. It's an expensive oversight. Maybe if it landed with legs with a brushless motor and wheel on each extended to be drawn in towards the body once it had landed. That would also make it mobile and able to adjust its body height and incline. ?
never landed anywhere there and never will
Odysseus landing on its side is like a representation of how the world has fallen on its side into an Idiocracy.
EXACTLY what I thought... The perfect image capturing our own world's tipping over into stupefying idiocy, illogic, and insanity.
It’s almost as tho when the failed guidance system was substituted to the onload payload for LiDAR that there’s an information issue at fault. Odysseus should have landed well but I feel that during landing the nasa payload was adequate had it not been on the wrong side of the lander. A rotational adjustment to put the sensors towards the approach of decent could have helped. I think as it landed and systems failed the orientation of the nasa lidar payload. I’m surprised a failsafe as the mechanical touch down sensors wasn’t designed into this lander. The patch must have had an issue. It’s still incredible we landed on the moon and it survived for a few days. It came in too fast and too low for a proper landing.
Your floor is now clean....your...your floor is now clean.
It's the fault of their top engeneer Ms. Olga Tumbelova.
I blame their top programmer, Mrs. Natasha Sidevskaya.
DEI hire..... They need to only hire Straight White Men if they want it done right
More likely the controller built by Feldon Miass
@@OldBenOne 🤣🤣No way, now we're in Bart Simpson calling Moe territory.
@@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma Director Murphy self-enforcing laws again.
Hi umm is this a stupid question: why is the shape so obviously top heavy? Why not make a shorter, flatter lander??
In this case it's because of the limitations of the launch vehicle. They built it as wide as the fairing allowed.
I love how Scott says "Mun"
Thanks!
Looks like we need the old NASA 1969 technicians to show us how to use all our latest technology, in landing a successful mission on the moon? Oh wait....... they forgot how to do it. Silly me.
Why did the actornaught helmet fill with water recently? Water in space enough to almost drown him!!!
Ham radio people for the win! 😉
Mmmmmm ham.
hmmm... I'll go with the A-team with pocket protectors and slide rulers please.
Analysis of the 60s film showing the trajectory of the dust being thrown from the wheels of the rover, proves that footage was taken on the moon. There was no way to fake the trajectory of dust falling in 1/6G back in the 60s.
Find some moonbuggy video and play around with playback speed settings. I observe there is an inconsistency between video taken OF the buggy running vs. FROM the buggy. "2" of, and "normal" from seem synchronized to my eye. The fact that there IS dust in the buggy footage, and that it seems to follow the laws of physics, unfortunately, reinforces the hoax allegations regarding the complete lack of cratering beneath the landers' thrusters and dust on their landing gear. So far nobody has shared a convincing explanation for that reality. Please feel free to offer yours. I truly would like to believe (as I used to)
P.S: I have no doubt that Earth is round.
@@DarryllC What an incoherent, strange comment
@@rrai1999 I ' l l t y p e s l o w e r f o r y o u n e x t t i m e . A s i f I w e r e w r i t i n g o n t h e m o o n .
C a n y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h i s b e t t e r ?
When commercial flights happen with public funding, they should be compelled to do these live streams. Don't give them any ideas to share less.
Real-time transparency: By livestreaming commercial flights, passengers and the public can learn about the flight process, safety measures, and pilot operations in real-time. This transparency helps build trust and increase passenger satisfaction.
Education and awareness-raising: Live streaming can be an educational platform to educate the public about the workings of the aviation industry, flight principles, and safety standards. This helps to improve the public's understanding of the aviation industry
looking at the early model of this lander its a bit more stumpy ...so perhaps more stable. The final unit was pretty tall. not surprised it tipped over really.
14:16 "...bonus point because they are closer to the moon than they otherwise would be..." Blowing coffee out of my nose.🤣
They called it successful landing
And they called the big space rock the Moon
Ye 😂
It did technically land
It's on another celestial body and still communicating back to Earth. Unlike some other recent missions, it didn't invert and crash into the Moon. Touching down and still being intact, it was a success. It just may not have been as successful as they would have liked.
I mean… it did land on the moon 🤷
The problem with commercial space projects is that the primary mission is always to "increase shareholder value.."
Ummmm... yeah.
You DO realize that people (we'll call them "investors" and YOU can be one too if you have an extra couple hundred in your pocket to spare)
Willingly give thier money to a company - with the idea that if the company is successful they will be paid back plus interest.
If you can't be successful - people will soon stop giving you money to work with... in fact, people will TAKE thier remaining money away and give it to someone else.
So yeah... a private company's main reason for existing is to produce whatever its main focus is to ensure the shareholders are happy and the company remains solvent and attracts more investors. That's how the private sector works... and news flash, they can do space better and faster than NASA, ESA, and ROSCOSMOS can.
Why? Because they have to keep the investors happy, not some political hack oversight committee. (who is probably on the take)
Meanwhile... .gov TAKES money from people (we'll call them "tax payers" and likely unless you are a crook, you are already one) and spends it foolishly on all sorts of stuff that I don't approve of and then tells us they need MORE. And THEY DONT GIVE IT BACK with interest.
I'd rather fund a company that will be fiscally responsible with the money I give them in good faith that my investment and then some will eventually be returned to me.
Has anybody noticed how TALL modern lander designs are compared with previous ones. While having six lander legs is nice, the center of mass of a vehicle should be lower if they are going to have that high a lateral speed while landing. What will happen when manned missions don't have a 0 kph lateral speed? Squatter vehicles or even landing skis may be the option for lower budget missions...
I was going to ask the same question!
I’ve been wondering the same thing. Anybody remember the Surveyor lunar lander from the 60s? It was wide, squat and I think only had three legs. Low center of gravity, so it hard to tip over. Why are all these new landers built like telephone booths (remember them?) on stilts? And don’t get me started with Starship landing on little bitty feet.
Yeah, they're gonna FAFO if they're not careful. Destin tried to warn them.
@scottmanley Off topic, but had to ask: what are the crosses on NASA Moon landing mission photographs used? Thank you!
they're used for scale. and it wasn't NASA that begun using them.
Oh cool. Thank you! Who was the first to use crosses for scale reference?
And this is why people think we didn't land on the moon
you didnt and never will either my ai iphone zombie
is there anyone out there who still really think you landed anywhere?
Who would have thought that an object twice as tall as it is wide would be tippy.
Depends on the center of mass. Main engines and landing legs are usually some of the heaviest equipment on a spacecraft.
Inertia is a big factor as well, but as Scott theorizes, there was probably a little too much side motion on the vehicle when a leg touched, and cause a pirouette.
NOBODY that's ever played KSP for sure.
@@TheJimtankerhave you ever used the COM tool in KSP? lol
‘Help, I’ve fallen and I can’t get up”. Should have sent up LIFE ALERT 🚨
Does the center of gravity increase/decrease in height with a reduction in gravity, or does it stay the same.
Very good question.
And we did this 50 years ago with less technology.....can't even get rovers to land now....they want us to think we had moon cars lol
So with all our advance technology we pulled this stunt 😅😂😅😂 .... so did we really go to th we moon in 1969 ????? 😅😂😅😂 !!!! What nonsense !!!
It reminds me of my first succesful Mun landing in KSP. At least I had reaction vheels to get up
Scott,
My friends and I were discussing the movie Contact (from 1997) and how at the end the government said that the signal from Vega was actually man-made from a satellite. We were discussing how you can tell if a signal came from within the solar system or whether it actually came from Vega.
We basically concluded that it was impossible for a satellite or probe in the solar system to fake a signal coming from Vega because of the motion of Earth and the parallax from various ground stations looking up at it, radio astronomers would get conflicting answers as to which part of the sky the signal was coming from.
My gut says that the longer you need to fake the signal for (hours vs days vs weeks vs months as in the film), the further away your probe needs to be or the more probes you need to use.
Any thoughts on this?
This is the proof Americans have never been to the moon
No, this is proof that landing on the moon is difficult. Before Apollo 11, NASA ran 16 unmanned missions on the moon, 9 of which failed. Each failure improved the next mission.
@@Hobbes746 I’m sorry AI message. You can’t change what I see. I see Americans still not being able to performe normal un-manned landing. How could they take the risk to make manned landing if they didn’t know landing sideways is going to result in tipping over? Is they’re experience level going backwards?
@@Techne82 You have seen one company (IM) not learning the lessons of 60 years of spaceflight by other companies. Forgetting to switch on the altimeter is a rookie mistake. Before Apollo 11, NASA had already done more than 20 unmanned missions to the moon, not to mention countless tests of all the Apollo hardware.
Maybe design a lander like a weeble so it won't fall down.
lol maybe try to go into antarctica first!
Amazing network on!
4:00 minutes in the video,
I can see the lover part of the flame / Exhaust separates (diverges) more quickly than upper part.
Anybody know why that is....?
For the record!
It was my wife that asked this question.
Her name is Yaima.
Her brest look like 90 year older.
🎉
Note: (nSA)
If Armstrong was inside, he could just make it straight like the first one.
Why did they cut away right when it was about touch down in the test flight? 🧐
I’m just glad we are thinking about the Mün again 😉
this always happened to me in Kerbal.. just keep holding left or right and it will spin itself back into the air.
They put man on the moon 50 years ago using atari technology. Now, they can not put a can on the moon, with Ai computing . Bring back the slide rule..
Fine work fine work.
Yeah, this is a bummer. Major bummer.
Love your content Scott. Another reason we were able to do this 50 years ago versus now is simply the human factor. A human is going to be able to correct for abnormalities during landing far better than any preprogrammed computer can.
best troll comment so far 🤭
Boy a lower center of gravity would have been helpful!!
a brain instead of an ai iphone.... would be best
Big fan . Love your work. Shoot the moon. Would it be posable to go straight up , like jeffs ride, but go straight up out in to the space. Timed to meet the moon.
And then just do the landing as normal but lower gravity. Wouldn't it be the same as landing like jeffs ride but over there? Id be interested in your thoughts.
nice
Hang on… So they didn’t drop a thing they were supposed to drop because of a last minute change and then hit the ground faster than expected?
Is it possible they simply forgot to account for the slight increase in mass?
What happened to the guy that forgot about the switch??
Don’t they have some sort of checklist?
So I get that a remote operation like this is hard but would some lateral movement during landing be anticipated and a plan to correct be part of the programming?
The plan was to reduce horizontal velocity to zero before landing. That plan was scuppered by the primary altimeter being unavailable. A last-minute hack used one of the payload instruments as an altimeter, but that didn’t work as well so the lander overestimated its altitude, which meant it hit the ground harder than planned and before its horizontal velocity was reduced to zero. Landing with lateral velocity is only feasible if you have landing gear that includes wheels.
@@Hobbes746 thank you for the excellent explanation
This was a really large step. What if you could invent the ability for a lander to get back on its feet again? Like a lever that pushes out on it's side and sets it back upright. Idk, just a thought.
Just looking at the tall narrow design... It is no wonder it fell over.
I would think they could spin up some of the gyroscopes, establish some stable axes to push against then flip it to an upright orientation. Just like a spinning top.
This man is a legend! He should be called Jack precision
Did anyone else see see the camera covered by nondescript yellow-brown tape with "Remove Before Flight" sharpied on it and think "I bet the lidar array had the same kind of deal"?
There's a reason remove before flight tags are red.
16:31 Also, when you actually have a trained person inside the lunar lander, whose life literally depends on it, and who can see, react and make adjustments according to what is going on, it is in some ways easier to make a success out of it.
I'm always amazed when my Kerbal Space Program play events get confirmed by real life.